End of Ice Age

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laika, you said that "the fact that granite crystallizes slowly means it must have been at great depth."

Etna, Santorini, Turkish acccouts of volcanically active Caucasus when Sargon was there.
 
SkinWalker said:
Which "archaeological endeavors" have turned up any validation for biblical myth, ice?'If anything, archaeology has debunked much of the bible's mythology from Exodus to Jericho to the very origin of the Jewish people
Click to expand...

Here are some findings at Ur....

Excavations from 1922 to 1934 were funded by the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania and led by the archaeologist Sir Charles Leonard Woolley.

A total of about 1,850 burials were uncovered, including 16 that were described as "royal tombs" containing many valuable artifacts, including the Standard of Ur. Most of the royal tombs were dated to about 2600 BC.

Most of the treasures excavated at Ur are in the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Prince_James said:
TheVisitor:
I have no problem with mythology. It was not a term of denigration. It is, however, a myth - a poetic story usually meant to illustrate a point. The majority of it is ahistorical.
Click to expand...

SkinWalker said:
Which "archaeological endeavors" have turned up any validation for biblical myth, ice?
Click to expand...

(Q) said:
So, you're propping up a book of myths with another myth, didn't you know that?
Click to expand...


The bible is not a myth, unless it is to you.
That is your right.
 
Last edited:
The Hittites were thought to have been mythological, and Jericho was thought to have been mythological, until confirmed by modern archaeology.

Biblical Elam, long forgotten, was confirmed by modern archaeology, and the Table of Nations, Genesis 10, is the fantastically accurate accounting of clans which dispersed from the Middle East circa 2200 B.C.
 
You silly people are killing me.

Literature and mythology have always included factual places in their texts. In Huck Finn, Mark Twain mentioned the Mississippi River. In Moby Dick, Melville mentions Whitehall, China and Afghanistan all in the first chapter.

Because the places exist in no way implies that a character named Huck actually traveled by raft with a slave named Jim; nor does it mean a ship captain named Ahab was actually obsessed by a whale.

That these places exist does not imply that the myths surrounding them were true. But I'm sure the credulous are more than willing to believe their fantasies in spite of it all.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Hey Laika, you're wrong about granites, but let's see how you do on pillow basalts, were they extruded into water or onto dry land?
Click to expand...

Pillow basalts form when lava is chilled rapidly. This usually happens when the molten material is quenched in water. Did I pass your test? I am interested to know what, specifically, you disagree with regarding what I've said about granite.

Laika, you said that "the fact that granite crystallizes slowly means it must have been at great depth."
Click to expand...

Indeed I did. Is this sentence complete, or is there more to come?

Etna, Santorini, Turkish acccouts of volcanically active Caucasus when Sargon was there.
Click to expand...

Your theory promises to revolutionize not only archaeology, but also dendrochronology, climatology and geology, and threatens the viability of radiocarbon dating as a scientific method. So I trust that the above sentence does not represent all that you have in the way of evidence for your proposed massive volcanic event. Please, please provide evidence. Ice cores hold a record of past atmospheric composition. Is your CO2 spike also represented? Does it coincide with the ash layers which you claim but are yet to elaborate on?

I am still very interested to know your thoughts about how unconsolidated sediments became lithified in less than 3500 years of subaerial exposure.
 
Last edited:
There was much volcanism all through the 900 or so years of the Ice Age, just more at the end of it, because of isostatic readjustment, when the ocean temps had cooled sufficiently to reduce the cloud-cover so the winters became longer and colder, and the summers warmer and shorter, for massive snowmelt in the summer, with the long hard freeze of the winters, hence the thousands of bovines entombed in frozen muck in the Arctic regions, very obvious.

Glad to see, Laika, that you finally straightened yourself out on the granite, kinda hard to deny when it's right there in your posts.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
There was much volcanism all through the 900 or so years of the Ice Age, just more at the end of it, because of isostatic readjustment, when the ocean temps had cooled sufficiently to reduce the cloud-cover so the winters became longer and colder, and the summers warmer and shorter, for massive snowmelt in the summer, with the long hard freeze of the winters, hence the thousands of bovines entombed in frozen muck in the Arctic regions, very obvious.
Click to expand...

But what is the evidence?

Glad to see, Laika, that you finally straightened yourself out on the granite, kinda hard to deny when it's right there in your posts.
Click to expand...

Please explain.
 
Laika, give it up. Ice wouldn't dream of clarifying the point since for nutbars like him, obfuscation and being indirect are key to creating an argument he can maintain.
 
Skinwalker: I'm an optimist. What more can I say?

IceAgeCivilizations: I don't know where I've contradicted myself. Please indulge me. You've taken on this smugly triumphant attitude, as if you've made a great and conclusive point. The thing is, I don't know what this point is. If you explain, not only might more interested readers be able to appreciate it, but I might have something to reply to. The more you sidestep, the more it seems that you have derailed the dialogue for a purpose.

It's occurred to me that you might be referring to what I said about pillow lavas. If so, I still fail to see the contradiction. Basalt and granite are texturally different because of the different rates at which their component minerals crystallized.
 
What do you mean by 'Hint: granite'? I'm the one who brought up granite in the first place! Why do you seem unable to answer a straight question with a straight reply?

And I am still very interested to know your thoughts about how unconsolidated sediments became lithified in less than 3500 years of subaerial exposure.
 
It would seem that our local significance-junkie/mystery-monger, who appears to be peddling a book, was originally in disagreement with your statement that granite cools slowly and therefore at depth, though he failed to provide evidence to the contrary. You never retracted this, nor should you, but now Ice seems to be dodging his original disagreement by not being specific about it.

In other words, the pathology of the woo is such that they cannot publicly revise their claims or arguments for fear of losing ground in their arguments. This, of course, is purely psychological on the woo's part, but, nevertheless, a characteristic that is to be expected when bothering to publicly debate them. Never underestimate the willingness of the woo to obfuscate, lie, and dodge facts in order to appeal only to that data which supports their preconceived notions.

His only form of refutation to "granite cools slowly and therefore at depth" was to name a few place names. Notice, Ice is unwilling to cite proper references or discuss at length the geology of the localities. For the woo, it is enough to toss about loose facts as though it were random confetti. The hope is enough will fall about to create a high quantity of strawman arguments that the reality based opponent will be too preoccupied to notice, and therefore, stay focused on the primary argument. The wild claim the woo made to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top